[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

# Re: BETA-TEST release of LambdaMOO version 1.8.0beta1

- Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 09:42:35 PST
- From:
- cc: MOO-Cows.PARC@xerox.com
- In-Reply-to: "Gustavo Glusman's message of \"Thu, 08 Feb 1996 03:54:28 PST\" <v02130500ad3f90f6fbe4@[132.76.55.130]>"

    Gustavo Glusman writes:
    > >-- Added support for in-DB handling of all tracebacks, of which there are
    > >   two kinds: unhandled errors and tasks that have timed out.
    > ...
    > >      In both situations, the indicated verb call is made with the same
    > >   task_id() as the task that caused the traceback.
    >
    > Is the special verb call done immediately, or is it added to somebody's
    > task queue? In other words, is there guarantee that nothing else will
    > happen in between?

    Yes; it happens entirely within the virtual machine, before returning to the
    task manager.

    > >If the handler verb call
    > >   either suspends or returns a true value, then that code is considered to
    > >   have handled the traceback and no further processing will be done by the
    > >   server.
    >
    > It would be quite useful if the actual value returned were used by the
    > server to consider what to do next with the failing task, other than
    > letting it die.
    > For example, if $handle_task_timeout returned -
    >    {seconds-to-suspend, new-tick-count, new-second-count}
    > ...and both counts were positive, the original task that ran out of
    > resources might be allowed to resume as if nothing happened, with the new
    > tick/second counts as specified, after suspending for the specified number
    > of seconds.

    This would be non-trivial to add; right now, the task has already been blown
    away by the time your handler runs.

    > As you can see, I haven't really thought this out fully, but one of the
    > things that always bothered me in MOO programming is that all the tasks
    > have to keep wasting time suspending-if-needed, and there is no method for
    > providing a safety net for important tasks. The new functionality is a big
    > step in this direction (i.e. not just a dumb traceback), but the task dies
    > anyway, no matter what you do...

    I agree that this is a major failing of MOO, but no solution made it to the
    fully-designed stage before beta.  Now, it's too late (for me, anyway).

    	Pavel

References:

- Re: BETA-TEST release of LambdaMOO version 1.8.0beta1

- From: bmgustav@bioinformatics.weizmann.ac.il (Gustavo Glusman)

- Prev: Re: BETA-TEST release of LambdaMOO version 1.8.0beta1
- Next: Re: BETA-TEST release of LambdaMOO version 1.8.0beta1
- Index: MOO-cows
- Thread: MOO-cows

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index